From: Brausen James R.
Sent: Friday, August 14, 1998 2:20 PM
Subject: File No. s7-16-98
Jonathan G. Katz
Securities and Exchange Commission
450 5th Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20549-6009
Dear Mr. Katz,
Please except this letter as my opposition to Rule 102(e).
While practicing accounting in industry over the past 20 years I have
learned that this profession is far from an exact science. The
accountants judgement is essential in doing the job and the quality of
the decisions/judgements made are what defines the accountants
reputation. Errors in judgement do and will occur as will less than
optimum decisions. Conclusions that there was an error or poor decision
are usually made in hindsight.
It is important that 'improper professional conduct' not be tolerated.
But errors in judgement should not be considered as 'improper
professional conduct'. The state societies, state board of accountantcies
and the AICPA all monitor the quality of work done by accountants. The
reputations of these governing bodies are also vital to the accounting
profession and provides the foundation for the interest in the self
monitoring of the profession.
The accounting profession does hold itself to very high standards and
disciplinary action is warrented for 'improper professional conduct' .
The accountants should not be subject to more risk or exposure than
directors or officiers of a company by the SEC's proposed rule.
The ability for accountants to uses there best judgement without fear of
SEC disciplinary action is essential to keeping the world turning. The
wording of any rules put in place must distinguish between 'errors in
judgement' vs. 'conscious or deliberate actions' that could mislead the
users of the information.
Sincerely,
Jim Brausen, CPA
(Idaho - CP1252)